Download the full report in English and Spanish. You can also find the Methodology, Credits, and Endnotes section here.
CONTENTS
PDF Downloads
Methodology
Credits
Endnotes
This report analyzes co-creation and implementation by the locals participating in the OGP Local Program as of the end of 2024. It also includes analysis of commitments in national action plans that affect local government. Alongside this report, OGP is releasing new data on hundreds of local commitments, including reforms’ policy areas and local monitoring body assessments, now accessible here.
By 2024, 107 local governments undertook 143 action plans. Half of the local action plans assessed by this report are being implemented over two- or three-year periods. About forty percent of the action plans covered only one year. Thirteen cover a longer time span of four or five years. These action plans are being delivered across a range of local government contexts at different levels (i.e., towns, cities, counties, provinces, regions, and states).
By region, these action plans include 213 commitments from 39 local governments in the Americas, 135 commitments from 26 local governments in Europe and the Eastern Partnership, 108 commitments from 22 local governments in Africa and the Middle East, and 85 commitments from 20 local governments in Asia and the Pacific.
This report primarily draws its analysis from the following data sources:
- Action plans: The OGP Data & Analytics team categorized and analyzed data on action plan commitments’ policy areas. For context, the report discusses trends in commitments’ policy areas across all 143 local action plans made through OGP from the beginning of the OGP Local Program in 2017 through the end of 2024. Local commitments submitted to the Open Gov Challenge by April 2025 are also included in the analysis. Additionally, there is a review of commitments in national action plans that affect local governance. These commitments span a longer time frame—from 2011 through 2024.
- Stakeholder interviews: To gather in-depth insights, the IRM interviewed and corresponded with key government and civil society reformers in Aragón (Spain), Banggai (Indonesia), Nuevo León (Mexico), Plateau State (Nigeria), Santo Domingo de los Tsáchilas (Ecuador), and Yerevan (Armenia).
- Local monitoring body assessments: For accountability and learning, each local member is expected to select a local monitoring body. This body is responsible to independently evaluate and assess the co-creation process and the results achieved from implementing the commitments. For more information about monitoring bodies, refer to the “OGP Local Handbook,” available here. The monitoring bodies produced publicly accessible inception assessments, end-of-commitment assessments, and final learning exercises. The IRM used these assessments to gather examples for this report.
- Inception Assessments: This report drew from the 64 assessments submitted by monitoring bodies for 60 local jurisdictions by 10 April 2025. The other 43 relevant local jurisdictions did not have assessments by this date. These assessments appraise the co-creation process and the design of the commitments at their inception.
- End-of-Commitment Assessments: This report drew on over 100 end-of-commitment assessments submitted for 36 local jurisdictions by 10 April 2025. The other 29 local jurisdictions with action plans scheduled to end by 2024 had not yet submitted these assessments. These assessments appraise each commitment after completion. They provide coding, narrative explanations, evidence on the commitments’ efficacy in opening government, and lessons learned.
- Final Learning Exercises: This report drew on the 21 final learning exercises submitted by 10 April 2025. The other 29 local jurisdictions with action plans scheduled to end by 2024 had not yet submitted exercises. Following the end of the full action plan, the final learning exercises document what went well and what could be improved for the next action plan.
The data reviewed in this report has several limitations. First, although the report cites the number of commitments when discussing trends, commitments vary significantly. For example, a local government may pledge to update a website in one commitment and pass new legislation in another. This makes comparisons and aggregation difficult, even within local jurisdictions and within specific policy areas. Another limitation has to do with local monitoring body assessments, which are not available for all OGP local members. This means that more information is available for some members than others. Since having a functioning local monitoring body may be correlated with other aspects of governance, the locals most closely reviewed in the report may not be fully representative. Lastly, there is a time lag between when commitments are delivered and when they are assessed. This means that even when available, assessments disproportionately cover older commitments.
This report was prepared by IRM and overseen by IRM’s International Experts Panel. As part of the OGP Local Engagement Strategy, approved by the OGP Steering Committee, the IRM has committed to analyze the overall performance of local members to provide insights into their performance every two years. This is the IRM’s third biennial report on local members. The first biennial report, published in 2021, is available here. The second biennial report, published in 2023, is available here. For more information about IRM, refer to the OGP website page available here.
This report was prepared by the Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM) of the Open Government Partnership (OGP) and reviewed by external experts for quality and consistency. The IRM methodology, quality of IRM products, and review process is overseen by IRM’s International Experts Panel. For more information about the IRM, refer to the OGP webpage available here.
As part of the OGP Local Engagement Strategy approved by the OGP Steering Committee, the IRM has committed to produce an analysis of the overall performance of OGP local members every two years. This is the IRM’s third biennial local report. The 2021 report is available here and the 2023 report is available here.
Project Direction
Sarah Jacobs, OGP IRM Research Officer
Data Analysis
Renzo Falla, Lead, OGP Data & Analytics
Riana Bucceri, Assistant, OGP Data & Analytics
Qualitative Analysis
Andy McDevitt, Independent Researcher
Field Research
Pedro Espaillat, Independent Researcher
Ravio Patra, Independent Researcher
Reviewers
Shreya Basu (Chief, OGP Country and Local Programs), Pearl Clemente (Project Development Officer IV, Philippine Open Government Partnership Project Management Office), Cesar Cruz (OGP IRM External Reviewer), Munyema Hasan (Lead, OGP Evaluation & Learning), Erin Houlihan (Senior Program Director, National Democratic Institute), Maha Jweied (OGP IRM International Experts Panel), Haliru Ahmad Khalipha (Executive Director, Follow Taxes), Jose Maria Marin (Lead, OGP Local), Tinatin Ninua (Director, OGP Accountability and Learning), Andreas Pavlou (Lead, OGP IRM), Iván Peñarreta (Data and Open Government Strengthening Office, Santo Domingo de los Tsáchilas), Ángela Pérez Brunete (Director General Transparency and Quality, Madrid), and Pamela Rennie (Strategic Policy and Planning, Chief Executive’s Department, Glasgow)
Print Design and Layout
Nicol Regan
Web Design and Layout
Christina Socci, Senior Content & Research Officer, OGP
This report was produced with financial support from the European Union and UK International Development. Its contents are the sole responsibility of the Open Government Partnership and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union or UK International Development.
[1] By region, the percentage of locals that made at least one commitment addressing public participation was 100% in Africa and the Middle East, 90% in the Americas, 85% in Europe, and 75% in Asia and the Pacific.
[2] For examples, see: Asturias (Spain), Banská Bystrica (Slovak Republic), Béni Mellal-Khénifra (Morocco), Bogotá (Colombia), Chihuahua (Mexico), Glasgow (United Kingdom), Gyumri (Armenia), Kutaisi (Georgia), Maipú (Chile), Manizales (Colombia), Mexico State (Mexico), Novi Pazar (Serbia), Ontario (Canada), Osasco (Brazil), Paris (France), Santo Domingo de los Tsáchilas (Ecuador), Timișoara (Romania), Tlalnepantla de Baz (Mexico), and Vanadzor (Armenia).
[3] For examples, see: Akhaltsikhe (Georgia), Cartagena de Indias (Colombia), Córdoba (Argentina), Detmold (Germany), Makhanda (South Africa), Northern Ireland (United Kingdom), Regueb (Tunisia), Scotland (United Kingdom), Sekondi-Takoradi (Ghana), Wassa Amenfi East (Ghana), and Žilina (Slovak Republic).
[4] For examples, see: Carthage (Tunisia), Chepo (Panama), Contagem (Brazil), and the Valencian Community (Spain).
[5] For more examples, see: Cartagena de Indias (Colombia), Mendoza (Argentina), and São Paulo (Brazil).
[6] Manji Wilson (Chief Technical Adviser on Development Partnerships, Plateau State, Nigeria), interview by IRM, 4 February 2025; Gad Peter Shamaki (Civil Society Forum, Plateau State, Nigeria), interview by IRM, 16 February 2025.
[9] Eduardo Bejar (Fundación de Ayuda por Internet), interview by IRM, 25 February 2025.
[10] The IRM has changed this name to protect the identity of the individual.
[11] Sabel Sierra (Effective Government and Transparency Commission, Nuevo León Council, Mexico), interview by IRM, 7 March 2025.
[12] “Evaluación de procesos del programa del municipio de San Pedro Garza García Reingeniería de Atención” [Evaluation of the processes of the San Pedro Garza García municipality program to Reengineer Services], Nuevo León Council, 2024.
[15] For local jurisdictions with over two million inhabitants, 81% had made at least one commitment related to open data, compared to 55% of jurisdictions with between one and two million inhabitants and 23% of jurisdictions with fewer than one million inhabitants.
[16] In 2017–2018, 30% of local commitments focused on open data, compared to 23% during 2021–2022 and 7% during 2023–2024. This analysis excludes 2019–2020, as only 15 local commitments were submitted during the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.
[17] Follow Taxes, interview by IRM, 7 April 2025.
[18] Maharani Putri S. Wibowo (Deputy Director for Foreign Policy and International Development Cooperation, Ministry of National Development Planning), presentation at OGP Asia and the Pacific Regional Meeting, February 2025.
[19] The most popular policy areas for national commitments led by local governments were public participation (66% of commitments) and open data (29%).
[20] Compared to OGP local members, a smaller percentage of national commitments led by local governments focused on public services (25% versus 10%) and inclusion (25% versus 10%).
[21] IRM analysis of a sample of 86 local governments showed that finance and planning departments led 35% of OGP teams; local executives like mayors, town halls, and local councils led 34%; and more specialized agencies led 31%. This sample covers 80% of local governments that submitted at least one OGP action plan by the end of 2024 (86 of 107). It was selected to include all local governments for which data is available on the local OGP lead, and the form and size of the local government.
[22] Elisa Barrera Meneses (Plena Inclusión Aragón), interview by IRM, 28 February 2025.
[23] Mariana Cancela and Susana Barriga Corregidor (General Directorate for Institutional Relations, External Action and Transparency, Aragón, Spain), interview by IRM, 18 February 2025.
[24] Eduardo Bejar (Fundación de Ayuda por Internet), interview by IRM, 25 February 2025.
[26] For more examples, see: Buenos Aires (Argentina), Kakamega (Kenya), Salcedo (Dominican Republic), and Timișoara (Romania).
[27] Fernando Gómez (Citizen Participation Secretary, Nuevo León, Mexico), interview by IRM, 10 March 2025; Sabel Sierra (Effective Government and Transparency Commission, Nuevo León Council, Mexico), interview by IRM, 7 March 2025.
[28] For more examples, see: Asturias (Spain), Cartagena de Indias (Colombia), Córdoba (Argentina), Detmold (Germany), Glasgow (United Kingdom), and Rosario (Argentina).
[30] For more examples, see: Banská Bystrica (Slovak Republic), Chihuahua (Mexico), Glasgow (United Kingdom), Gyumri (Armenia), Kaduna State (Nigeria), Maipú (Chile), Quito (Ecuador), San Pedro Garza García (Mexico), Sarchí (Costa Rica), Scotland (United Kingdom), Tetouan (Morocco), and Wassa Amenfi East (Ghana).
[31] Bejar, interview; National Democratic Institute, interview by IRM, 4 March 2025.
[32] For more examples, see: Austin (United States), Basque Country (Spain), Buenos Aires (Argentina), Catalonia (Spain), Cartagena de Indias (Colombia), Contagem (Brazil), Quintana Roo (Mexico), Rosario (Argentina), Scotland (United Kingdom), Tetouan (Morocco), and Yerevan (Armenia).
[33] Manji Wilson (Chief Technical Advisor on Development Partnerships, Plateau State, Nigeria), interview by IRM, 4 February 2025; Cancela and Corregidor, interview.
[35] Fernando Gómez (Citizen Participation Secretary, Nuevo León, Mexico), interview by IRM, 10 March 2025
[40] Iván Peñarreta (Data and Open Government Strengthening Office, Santo Domingo de los Tsáchilas, Ecuador), interview by IRM, 7 February 2025.
[41] Follow Taxes, interview by IRM, 7 April 2025.
[42] IRM focus group with Brazilian local government representatives, 25 September 2025.
[43] Over two-thirds of governments with more than one million residents had at least one monitoring body assessment (31 of 44), compared to half of smaller jurisdictions (30 of 59).
[44] For local members active since 2021, most governments with multiple action plans had at least one monitoring body assessment (20 of 22), compared to half of those on their first action plan cycle (41 of 81).
[45] Marija Jankovic, interview by IRM, 27 February 2025.
[46] Wilson, interview; OGP stakeholder (São Paulo), interview.
[47] OGP stakeholder (São Paulo), interview.
[48] Philippine Open Government Partnership Project Management Office, correspondence with IRM, 27 August 2025.